Pages

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Hands off My Land, Pilgrim

Public Land management has never been a walk in the park. Draconian
budget cuts, disease, continuous lawsuits, wildfire, and the everyday
disagreements that Americans have over how these lands that are owned by all of
us are managed routinely make headlines not only in Montana, but across the
West.

The latest fad
from State Legislatures is to demand that the Federal Government turn over
public land to the states so that they can increase short term economic
development and reduce conservation regulations designed to ensure that
multiple use actually means multiple use. Montana
has been swept up in this resurgence of the old Sagebrush Rebellion.

During this last session, the Montana legislature, following
the lead of states like Utah, Wyoming and Idaho, passed
a resolution to look at federal land management, and while nobody is openly
admitting it, taking the public out of our public lands.

Frustrated by litigation, the Endangered Species Act, lack
of funding for land management agencies, drought, and wildfire and generally
just upset that some lands exist without a road or well pad, some legislators
believe that we need to assume control over the millions of acres of Federal
Lands in Montana. While the rhetoric of “taking back our lands from the feds”
plays into the libertarian streak we all have in Montana, transference of
public lands to the state would have some very real, and very negative consequences
for hunters, anglers and all who enjoy our great outdoors:

·Camping: The state allows you to camp up to two
days on State Trust Lands. That fight was hard won just a few short years ago.
At one time, we couldn’t even camp on state land. Now, while restrictive in
nature, we can finally camp on lands we pay taxes on. On Forest Service land,
you can now camp up to 16 days in most areas, 14 days during the hunting
season.

·Fire: By transferring the lands from the Federal
Government over to the State, the state would have to pay for the firefighting
on those lands. In 2010, on the bitterroot National Forest alone, that was $80
million. In order to achieve the kind of money needed, taxes most likely would
have to be raised on homeowners and quite possibly, our income taxes. It’s not
much of reach to see the state of Montana spending billions of dollars in
fighting fires, especially in the wildland-urban interface.

·Weeds: As the climate changes and more invasive
species like toadflax, spotted knapweed and other plants move in, choking out
our native sedges, grasses and forbs, the cost to fight these plants
skyrockets. Montana would have to pick up all of the costs of managing weeds.
This price tag has yet to be determined, but there’s not one person who can sit
back and think: “If only this field had more knapweed, then we’d have more elk.”

·Short Term Gains that come from intensive oil
and gas development and timber sales over long term profits that come from the sustainable
management of public lands that leads to long seasons and increased wildlife
abundance are touted as the best method of economic development: The State
Trust Lands, so called because they are held in trust for the schools of
Montana, are constitutionally mandated to garner the highest return for the
state. That means often times that extractive uses are given priority over
wildlife management, clean water and sensible extraction. While there is some
debate as to how that economic model works for the long term, hunters know that
often times, leased state ground can be unproductive when it comes to finding
game on it if not managed properly. It’s also easier to close down state land
to multiple use based on leasing conditions, crops, timing of livestock
grazing, etc.

·Increased cost to Livestock Producers:
Currently, the BLM & US Forest Service charge $1.35 per Animal Unit Month
(The volume of feed it takes to sustain a cow/calf pair). Current state rates
for livestock grazing are approximately $8 per AUM. That’s a significant
increase in operating costs for Montana’s livestock producers. It also could
man the difference between a profitable year and one where the profit margin
sinks to negative numbers, resulting in the subdivision of critical winter
range. While it may seem odd for a hunting & angling blog to advocate for
subsidized grazing, the truth is this: The impacts to wildlife by having public
land grazers subdivide or sell off the family homestead to rich out-of-staters
means less hunting opportunity for the average Montanan.

·Logging: While logging state lands remains mostly
profitable, the overriding talk has been how the state isn’t as tied to the
lawsuits that plague a lot of timber sales. Unfortunately, this rhetoric isn’t
entirely true. State Timber sales still hve to comply with the Endangered
Species Act and other federal regulations related to clean air & water.
They also have to go the MEPA (Montana Environmental Policy Act) process, which
is less onerous than the National Environmental Policy Act. However, having the
state administer these millions of acres would still grow state government
exponentially as well not necessarily curb lawsuits.

·Decreased Motorized Travel: State Trust lands
are usually more restrictive in terms of allowing motorized travel than a lot
of Forest Service lands. DNRC lands are generally off limits to motorized routes
unless explicitly stated and even then, the public is cut out of the discussion
unlike on Federal Lands, which have to go through public travel planning
processes. The voice of the average hunter is lost in the mix when it comes to
travel management on state lands. Lessees are given priority over hunters and
anglers. It’s just how things work folks.

In the end, when the twists and
turns are explored, the real motivation comes out on these type of studies:
Sell public land for short term gains. That’s unacceptable to a majority of
Montanans.

Throughout the study, “expert” witnesses have been called by the committee to
talk about why we need less public land or why the Federal Gov’t should give
the states land held in trust for all people. This study committee has yet to
ask for the opinions of the thousands of small business owners who rely on
public lands, public land hunting, fishing and recreation or clean water for their
livlihoods and jobs. It is unconscionable that a legislative committee hold a
study and not invite the largest users of public lands to voice their opinion.
When studies like this occur, it makes folks think that the outcome is
pre-determined: Sell ‘em off, eliminate opportunity for the average Montanan
and reduce the economic diversity of our state.

The issue of public
land management should be front and center. The debate, however, is not fair
and balanced. It’s lop-sided and slanted to one philosophy, a philosophy that
doesn’t stack up with public sentiment or our outdoor heritage. During the initial
stages of the study, the Legislature asked for opinions from a select group of
land managers & experts. They
didn’t like what they heard, so now they’re excluding that voice from the
debate. University of Montana’s own Dr.
Martin Nie – a respected author and professor whose work on public lands helps
shape federal land policy had a very simple statement that should ring true for
all of the Legislators and the clan of profiteers waiting to carve up our
public lands:

It is my professional opinion that the
recent spate of resolutions and studies coming from western

states will end their journey in the same
Cul-de sac as the sagebrush rebellion. And like the rebellion

before it, the ultimate impact of today’s
protests will be more symbolic than substantive in nature.34

Symbolism has its political virtues, but
governing and managing federal land is different than using

the issue as a political wedge. Resurrecting
arguments from the sagebrush rebellion makes for great

political theater but such efforts will not
take us very far in solving the most pressing issues in